topic Re: Dunning Letter in Rebuilding Your Credit

Dunning Letter

acrylic51 — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:06:06 GMT

Received a dunning letter, and immediately faxed and snail mailed a DV letter to the CA.....Have proof that they received the DV letter through certified mail with signature. Curious as to the steps to proceed if they don't respond to the DV........

Re: Dunning Letter

annielorie — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:18:25 GMT

Send copy of letter with CM RRR after 30 days to the CRA and have it deleted

Re: Dunning Letter

RobertEG — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:47:22 GMT

Their is NO basis for sending a request/dispute to the CRA for deletion based on lack of response to a DV request. It is a debt collection practices matter between the consumer and the debt collector, to which the CRAs are not a party.

A DV request sets no time period on the debt collector for response. If the DV was timely, it invokes a cease collection bar upon them until such time as they choose to respond. If they continue debt collection activities without first providing debt verification, your recourse is to file a complaint with the FTC, your local BBB, state AG, etc., or file your own civil action.

If they continue to comply with the cease collection bar, you wait. It is within their rights to trade any continance of collection on the debt for non-response to a DV request.

It creates a state of limbo......

Re: Dunning Letter

annielorie — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:11:46 GMT

Maybe Im a little rusty RObert but if the CA does not validate and the DV is timely then if the CA doesnt respond to the DV then they must cease all collection activity, therefore wouldnt a dispute have the item deleted if the CA is barred from collection activity(wouldnt that mean verifying to the CRA that debt is valid)until they furnish debt validation??

Re: Dunning Letter

acrylic51 — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:28:10 GMT

I'm positive the DV was timely....CACH LLC turned it over to Pezzuto law and the day I received their dunning letter which wasn't threatening in any way, but the DV was sent out certified the following day.

Does seem like a one side coin though.... They can press and pursue you, but even if your timely they can do whatever????

Re: Dunning Letter

RobertEG — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:58:23 GMT

There is a process advocated on other credit repair sites referred to as the "1-2 Punch process" that is built upon, in my opinion, the erroneous assumption that while under a cease collection bar, a debt collector is precluded from verifying accuracy back to a CRA upon filing of a consumer dispute.

That process recommends sending a timely DV, then immediately filing a dispute. Under the 1-2 Punch theory, verification back to the CRA is a prohibited collection on the debt. Thus, lacking verification, the CRA must then delete.

In my opinion, that process is nonsense. When a consumer files a dispute, it imposes a statutory requirement on the CRA to forward it to the party who reported the infomation, and a statutory requirement under FCRA 623(b) for that furnisher to respond back to the CRA. They would thus be in violation of the FCRA if they failed to respond. It is nonsensical to me that a statutorily mandated action on their part could or would be considered a prohibited debt collection activity.

There is no case law to my knowledge to support such a contorted interpretation that the FDCPA prohibits one from complying with the FCRA. I doubt any court would ever support such a contention.

Re: Dunning Letter

annielorie — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:58:08 GMT

I wasnt aware of what you referred to as the one two punch but wouldnt the lack of validating the debt conclude that they dont have the necessary proof of it being a legitimate debt that is owed otherwise CA would just put on any debt to ones CR and the consumer would never be able to legitimatly have it removed(not correct not owed zombie etc.)Then DV is nothing more than bull and a CA is really free to do whatever they wish. therfore the consumer is in the water without a paddle. If anyone else has any info on this please chime in. While there may not be any caselaw directly associated with this issue, I feel that the CRA would in their part at least understand that due dilligence has not been done by the CA and therefore delete. Not arguing the point merely stating common sense. I do not think the FCRA would give such a liberty to the CA's as it was written I believe mostly to protect the consumer. Anyone on this????????????????

Re: Dunning Letter

annielorie — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:00:02 GMT

BUMP

Re: Dunning Letter

acrylic51 — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:11:38 GMT

Thanks Annielorie.....My thoughts exactly.....as to a CA can put you out there in the water with no paddle. If the consumer is required to follow certain process why shouldn't all parties have to comply to a degree.

The reason I brought this topic up is the account is listed as CACH LLC on my credit report, but was turned over to Pezzuto Law Firm. I got a dunning notice from them that they wanted to try to work things out on the account.....I have an issue with the account. It was poor choice on my part taking the payday loan.....Doing a bit of research I found that payday loans are illegal in Pennsylvania, and even when I read about permissible interest and such, they are way off. This is my reasoning for requesting the debt validation. I want them to outline what the original loan amount was. By Pennsylvania law they can only charge 6% interest which is allowable in the state. Again I run into conflict, knowing the loan is illegal, and me being dumb, but the OC also breaking law providing the loan, but at the same time won't pay $1600.00 on a $400.00 loan when state law states their interests and fees are illegal!!!!!

Re: Dunning Letter

annielorie — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:15:16 GMT

Why didnt you say that in the first place!!?? Contact the AG of your state. If they supplied an illegal loan they can be held liable!

Re: Dunning Letter

RobertEG — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:19:36 GMT

Your logic is predicated upon the assumption that lack of verification of the debt is an admission that they cannot validate.

They have the right under the FDCPA to withold verification. The DV process is not one that compels debt verification. It is a debt collection practices process that imposes a penalty upon them until such time as they choose to provide verification. It frees the consumer from active collection on the debt until they have been provided the requested information. If you wish to compel verification, you would have to get the issue before a court, which has the authority to compel a party to produce information. However, failure to have provided verification is not basis for a civil action under the FDCPA.

A debt collector who knowingly reports a false debt is commiting an illegal act that would subject them to civil damages. I doubt they would do so based on the fact that debt verification is not compulsory.

Debt collectors are in business to collect on debts. The imposition of a cease collection bar puts them out of business until they provide verification.

I dont see the DV process as toothless. It is what it is.

Re: Dunning Letter

acrylic51 — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:20:32 GMT

I've been looking into that as well.....It's a rather long paper trail. At first it showed on my CR as ThinkCashFBD and then supposedly sold to First Bank of Delaware, and then off to CACH LLC, and then they use their people.....I'm trying to track down all the pertinent info before I file anything with the AG........

Re: Dunning Letter

annielorie — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:45:12 GMT

First the party that supplied an illegal loan is liable. Contact an attorney in your state for specifics. Robert while I appreciate that we the consumer can sue civil to make them be compelled to produce info lets face it thats a rarity. Most people dont sue or take debt collectors to court. Although the CA's can be held liable for false info on a report, it is done all the time. Or else how can one explain how zombie debts miraculously appear on ones report ie when going for a mortgage as an example. The CA's know that chances are good a consumer will pay it for fear that it will interfere with a closing on a mortgage. Then they submit to delete, thats called ransom. the kidnapping of your credit. Because the process is lengthy that is exactly why the CA's target people applying for a mortgage. It should be illegal for any creditor to see what inquires a consumer has. If the system was set up to automaticaly report tradelines as inquiries do the cc company or creditor would be protected. Perhaps the FCRA needs some amendments. Remember also that we arent a giant community, most dont realize its existence, and the population as a whole is pretty credit stupid, (wrong info out, variations into determining what the FCRA is and isnt. This is a larger isssue that needs to be brought to the attention of our constituents. And why in gods name would a bill to protect the consumer give such a lattitude to a CA as to validating the debt. In theory if they are not compelled to validate a debt they can destroy ones credit by simply putting it on report then selling to another agency. Pretty easy way to make money until the govt discovers them and shuts them down. Making the consumer a dog that is chasing its tail. A vicous cylce that a consumer could have on a report for a full 7years plus the notorius 180 days !@!!!!!!

Re: Dunning Letter

acrylic51 — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:33:56 GMT

A bit of an update!!!!! As I had mentioned before about sending a timely DV letter after receiving the dunning letter, I proceeded to send a letter to my Attorney General and also filed a complaint with the BBB.

A bit of a shocker.....Friday I got home and found a letter from the PA Attorney General giving me more insight on the matter, and that they would be involved in the matter and would also get the Banking Dept in Pennsylvania also involved in the case. To my surprise this morning I checked my email and found I had gotten a response back from the BBB on my complaint. In my complaint with all parties I listed CACH LLC, First Bank of Delaware, and Pezzuto Law Firm in my complaints with all agencies. CACH LLC in their response to my complaint clearly states, they are a "passive debt buyer", they don't generate calls or send letters; which IMHO would violate or hinder anyones opportunity to file a timely DV in a matter........With that being said they noted the account would be closed and no monies owed. They stated they have requested deletion of their trade lines from CRs

Re: Dunning Letter

Shogun — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 05:30:42 GMT

Congrats!

Re: Dunning Letter

acrylic51 — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:05:08 GMT

Another bit of an update on my progress......Today I had an itch to check my scores......I check EQ first and my score has jumped to 693, and I had disputed with them that an old Sprint bill was paid, and sent proof, and they came back with a response that it isn't showing on my report.....To my surprise when I check my report it's still showing under the collections tab with the original amount owed still showing.....Is that normal or does it just take time for them to update everything........

TU update as well, and jumped from 639 to 661 as well......

I had be disputing with CACH LLC and Pezzuto Law, and had contacted my AG, and also the BBB as well.....I did get a response back from the AG stating they would be looking into the matter and opening a file, and wanted me to forward any information I had to them, and they also stated that they would be getting the PA Banking Dept involved in the matter as well. I was contacted by a very nice lady from the banking dept and I had informed her of what CACH LLC response was to my BBB complaint as well, and see also requested a copy of any information, and stated they will be looking into their practices as well....

I'm curious because on both my credit reports the CACH LLC is deleted, but I'm still seeing the original TL from First Bank of Delaware where the debt was originated from.....Again is this something I could challenge since the removed CACH LLC........